The Image of God and Holiness - Affinity
The Image of God and Holiness - Affinity
The Image of God and Holiness - Affinity
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Image</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Holiness</strong><br />
Mostyn Roberts<br />
This article is based on a paper given at the<br />
John Owen Centre in April 2005 at a seminar entitled<br />
'Style or Substance 21st Century <strong>Holiness</strong>'.<br />
Introduction<br />
Samuel was impressed by the first <strong>of</strong> Jesse's sons (1 Sam.<br />
16:1-7). Eliab's appearance made him a good c<strong>and</strong>idate<br />
for the kingship. In fact, the implication is that he was<br />
rather similar to the young Saul who was also impressive<br />
looking, st<strong>and</strong>ing head <strong>and</strong> shoulders above other men.<br />
Maybe that resemblance influenced Samuel in some way.<br />
This is what kings look like. But as Samuel thought 'This<br />
is the one' the Lord spoke clearly to him <strong>and</strong> gave what is<br />
surely the definitive word on the relative merits <strong>of</strong> style<br />
<strong>and</strong> substance: 'Do not look on his appearance or on the<br />
height <strong>of</strong> his stature, because I have rejected him. For the<br />
Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward<br />
appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart' (1 Sam.16:7).1<br />
'Man looks on the outward appearance'. Not only in the<br />
21st century but in lO50 B.C. Not only superficial<br />
worldlings or teenagers, but the godly elder-statesman <strong>of</strong><br />
Israel. <strong>The</strong> punchline however is that the man <strong>God</strong> did<br />
choose was impressive looking; David was 'ruddy <strong>and</strong><br />
had beautiful eyes <strong>and</strong> was h<strong>and</strong>some'. Ugly people<br />
cannot claim the spiritual high-ground; the point is that<br />
appearance simply does not matter.<br />
Now what does this begin to say to us <strong>The</strong> pursuit <strong>of</strong><br />
holiness is always a struggle. Today we are part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
society greatly given to 'images' <strong>and</strong> to style, too <strong>of</strong>ten at<br />
the expense <strong>of</strong> substance. I want to look at the concept <strong>of</strong><br />
the 'image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>' to help us distinguish what we are<br />
from what we appear to be. What is this image What<br />
does its loss mean How may it be recovered How can<br />
people be led to reality <strong>and</strong> be less entranced by style.<br />
How, in other words, can 'the image' deliver us from<br />
images<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Image</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />
Genesis 1 :26,27 states that <strong>God</strong> made man, male <strong>and</strong><br />
female, 'in our image, after our likeness'. <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />
sound basis for a clear distinction between 'image'<br />
(tselem) <strong>and</strong> 'likeness' (demuth) [see the use <strong>of</strong> 'likeness'<br />
alone in Gen 5: 1, the use <strong>of</strong> both words again in 5: 3, <strong>and</strong><br />
'image' alone in 9:6} but the overall meaning is that man<br />
(humanity) is made to resemble <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> to represent <strong>God</strong>.<br />
<strong>God</strong> is saying 'Let us make man to be like us<br />
<strong>and</strong> to represent us'. <strong>The</strong> word 'image' is used <strong>of</strong><br />
Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 3 - an image to<br />
represent the king, to remind the people to whom they<br />
owed allegiance. Two things become clear early in<br />
Genesis with regard to this image: (1) it is transferable<br />
through natural generation (5:3); Adam's son is in 'his'<br />
image which is presumably the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> passed on -<br />
there is no clear suggestion that this is only his 'sinful'<br />
image. (2) <strong>The</strong> image is sacrosanct: (a) it is not to be<br />
murdered 'for <strong>God</strong> made man in his own image'(9:6) <strong>and</strong><br />
(b) no other, competing image is to be made - the second<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ment which, though it clearly has primary<br />
reference to protecting the spirituality <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in the eyes<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Israelites, also preserves the uniqueness <strong>of</strong> man as<br />
the only divinely authorised image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> (Deut 4: 16;<br />
27:15). Only man bears the Maker's trademark <strong>and</strong> it is<br />
not to be pirated. Man is in the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>; it is not<br />
just something he has. He 'images' <strong>God</strong>. This is 'the<br />
heart <strong>of</strong> Christian anthropology';2 it is what makes us<br />
human.<br />
But what is the 'content' <strong>of</strong> this image Various answers<br />
have been given. (1) Some look at what man does - a<br />
functional approach, in particular the restriction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
image to the exercise <strong>of</strong> dominion. But is this really 'the<br />
image' or is it 'a bestowment upon the image bearer'<br />
Man's lordship is surely not identical with the image but<br />
an implication <strong>of</strong> it. (2) Others look at man's capacity for<br />
relationships - the relational view (eg Barth). We are<br />
analogous to <strong>God</strong> in our relationships but not in our<br />
being. A consequence <strong>of</strong> this is that nothing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
image is lost at the Fall because we are still capable <strong>of</strong><br />
relationships. But this relational view seems too<br />
10<br />
Foundations
estrictive. (3) A third approach is the substantive view<br />
- to see some particular quality <strong>of</strong> man - most commonly<br />
intellect or reason, or spirituality, as comprising the<br />
image. This was the approach <strong>of</strong> eg Irenaeus <strong>and</strong><br />
Aquinas. No doubt something can be learned from each<br />
<strong>of</strong> these approaches though each is unsatisfactory in itself.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Reformed approach has been to adopt what Reymond<br />
calls the 'restoration hermeneutic'.3 This looks at that to<br />
which man is restored in Christ eg in Ephesians 4:23,24:<br />
the new man is created 'after the likeness <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />
(according to <strong>God</strong>) in true righteousness <strong>and</strong> holiness';<br />
<strong>and</strong> Colossians 3:10, where the new man is 'being<br />
renewed in knowledge after the image (kat' eikwna) <strong>of</strong> its<br />
creator'. Righteousness (moral rectitude, perfect<br />
conformity to <strong>God</strong>'s will), holiness (true piety towards<br />
<strong>God</strong>) <strong>and</strong> true knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> are renewed in Christ.<br />
Is it not justified therefore to see in these what was given<br />
at creation Indeed not just given at creation but also -<br />
since it needs to be renewed - lost at the Fall<br />
Here we need to make the important distinction between<br />
the image in the 'broad' sense <strong>and</strong> in the 'narrow' sense.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Bible is clear that even after the Fall man is in the<br />
image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>: Gen 9:6; James 3:9. <strong>The</strong>ologians have used<br />
various terms to describe what was retained <strong>and</strong> what was<br />
lost (respectively broad/narrow [Berkh<strong>of</strong>, Bavinck};<br />
formal/material [Brunner}; structural/ functional<br />
[Hoekema}). <strong>The</strong>se are not two images, but one image<br />
with two aspects. What theologians are trying to grapple<br />
with is the fact that man lost something at the Fall but is<br />
still thereafter in <strong>God</strong>'s image. <strong>The</strong> Reformed 'restoration<br />
hermeneutic' takes the passages in Ephesians <strong>and</strong><br />
Colossians <strong>and</strong> says 'this is what is renewed, therefore this<br />
is what was lost.' <strong>The</strong> image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> truly so called, 'the<br />
strict <strong>and</strong> proper acceptation <strong>of</strong> the phrase' in Thornwell's<br />
words,4 is 'holiness', original righteousness or what<br />
Edwards calls 'moral excellency'. 5 This was lost at the<br />
Fall but man is still in <strong>God</strong>'s image in a broader sense.<br />
What is this 'broader' sense It is the 'entire endowment<br />
<strong>of</strong> gifts <strong>and</strong> capacities that enable man to function as he<br />
should in his various relationships <strong>and</strong> callings'<br />
(Hoekema).6 <strong>The</strong>se include his spiritual capacity, moral<br />
nature, rational powers, conscience, the ability to choose,<br />
creativity, the ability to rule, the capacity for<br />
relationships, emotions, communication, love. <strong>The</strong> exercise<br />
<strong>of</strong> dominion may rightly be said to be foremost<br />
among these capacities as it is specifically mentioned in<br />
Genesis 1 <strong>and</strong> expounded in Psalm 8. This 'broader'<br />
image remains, though scarred, shattered <strong>and</strong> terribly<br />
deformed by the Fall. But the narrow image has been lost<br />
altogether. Now how are we to underst<strong>and</strong> this Was<br />
holiness a 'faculty' that was lost As a man might lose a<br />
kidney or the power <strong>of</strong> reason No; at the Fall, no faculty<br />
<strong>of</strong> man was lost. That is the weakness <strong>of</strong> the Roman<br />
Catholic position - original righteousness as a 'superadded<br />
gift' which enables man to keep his unstable nature<br />
in check, but which was lost at the Fall. <strong>The</strong> narrow<br />
image - holiness - is in fact not so much a faculty or<br />
capacity but the way in which man in perfection related<br />
to <strong>God</strong>. According to Jonathan Edwards, not only did man<br />
possess those faculties <strong>of</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> will wherein<br />
he resembles the <strong>God</strong>head (the natural [broad} image) but<br />
his exercise <strong>of</strong> those faculties in humble love <strong>and</strong><br />
obedience was a mirror <strong>of</strong> the divine glory (the spiritual<br />
[narrow} image)7. Man can only be what <strong>God</strong> intends him<br />
to be if he is holy, that is, if he is exercising all the<br />
capacities that <strong>God</strong> has given him in perfect conformity<br />
to the will <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>. <strong>The</strong> narrow image, which Hoekema<br />
calls 'functional', as it consists in the use that is made <strong>of</strong><br />
the faculties <strong>of</strong> man in the broader image, is therefore lost<br />
when man disobeys. <strong>The</strong> narrow image is therefore<br />
'dynamic' as it is not a faculty but the maintaining <strong>of</strong> a<br />
relationship through perfect obedience, exercising that<br />
perfect propensity for perfect obedience that Adam<br />
enjoyed - his original righteousness. Adapting Hoekema's<br />
language, the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> is both structural (what man<br />
is, the broader image) <strong>and</strong> functional (man living<br />
obediently in relation to <strong>God</strong>, the narrow image). As a<br />
bird was meant to fly, even if the wings are in perfect<br />
condition, without flight the bird is not fulfilling its<br />
purpose. <strong>The</strong> narrow image is not just the capacity for a<br />
right relationship with <strong>God</strong> - sinners retain that - but<br />
the maintaining <strong>and</strong> enjoyment <strong>of</strong> that right relationship.<br />
This dynamic nature <strong>of</strong> the image has not perhaps been<br />
Spring 2006<br />
11
emphasized enough though it is by no means a new idea.<br />
Man must live a life <strong>of</strong> perfect love to <strong>God</strong>, not just have<br />
all his faculties.<br />
Thornwell <strong>and</strong> Calvin alike assert the universality <strong>of</strong> the<br />
image in human life. Thornwell says <strong>of</strong> Adam: <strong>The</strong> law<br />
was the bent <strong>of</strong> his being ... with reason enlightened in<br />
the spiritual knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> ... with a will prone to<br />
obey the dictates <strong>of</strong> reason thus enlightened <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />
in accordance with the spirit <strong>of</strong> divine law. He knew his<br />
relations to <strong>God</strong>, his relations to his wife ... <strong>and</strong> his<br />
relations to the world; <strong>and</strong> knew them with that spiritual<br />
apprehension which converted his knowledge into one<br />
continued act <strong>of</strong> religion'.s Calvin writes: 'the likeness <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>God</strong> extends to the whole excellence by which man's<br />
nature towers over all the kinds <strong>of</strong> living creatures.<br />
Accordingly, the integrity with which Adam was<br />
endowed is expressed by this word [likeness/image), when<br />
he had full possession <strong>of</strong> right underst<strong>and</strong>ing, when he<br />
had his affections kept within the bounds <strong>of</strong> reason, all<br />
his senses tempered in right order, <strong>and</strong> he ttuly referred<br />
his excellence to the exceptional gifts bestowed upon him<br />
by his maker'. 9 (Calvin <strong>of</strong>ten spoke as if the image in<br />
totality was lost at the Fall but he also makes it clear<br />
elsewhere that he regarded the image as continuing).<br />
Man was therefore made to resemble <strong>and</strong> to represent<br />
<strong>God</strong> in every area <strong>of</strong> life; to love <strong>and</strong> worship <strong>God</strong> in all<br />
<strong>of</strong> life, in all <strong>of</strong> his being, body, mind, emotions, will.<br />
This can be summarised as living in conformity with the<br />
will <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in a threefold relation: to <strong>God</strong>, neighbour<br />
<strong>and</strong> the created order. When he fell, all <strong>of</strong> his being <strong>and</strong><br />
all <strong>of</strong> life was affected. 'Depravity' was 'total'. What is to<br />
be restored must be in each relation.<br />
What happened at the Fall<br />
(1) <strong>The</strong> Nature <strong>of</strong> the Fall<br />
Man disobeyed <strong>God</strong>. His continued blessedness <strong>and</strong> role<br />
in creation was made dependent on obedience to a<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>. He had all the capacities required to obey.<br />
Why he did not is beyond us to fathom. What he lost<br />
was 'righteousness'. As a result we are a race dead in sin.<br />
But what was at the heart <strong>of</strong> losing the heart <strong>of</strong> the image<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> Genesis 3 points to the sowing <strong>of</strong> mistrust in<br />
<strong>God</strong>; the idea that he could not be trusted, that he was<br />
not loving. Or that love was the 'appearance' <strong>God</strong> was<br />
projecting, but not his reality. <strong>The</strong> conviction <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>'s<br />
love is the essential precondition to maintaining the<br />
image. Once that is lost, trust is lost <strong>and</strong> disobedience<br />
follows almost automatically. Faith is the presupposition<br />
<strong>of</strong> obedience.<br />
It is to the ensuing disobedience itself, however, that<br />
the Bible traces sin. <strong>The</strong> very heart <strong>of</strong> our identity is<br />
obedience to our Creator. We are essentially moral beings.<br />
What do we mean by 'moral' That <strong>God</strong> is a 'moral'<br />
being - he is holy <strong>and</strong> requires above all else from his<br />
creatures conformity with his character; as Creator he<br />
justifiably issues comm<strong>and</strong>s; we are to obey; there is<br />
absolute right <strong>and</strong> absolute wrong; disobedience is sin;<br />
we are accountable; faith entails obedience; love for <strong>God</strong><br />
will be shown by obedience; persistent <strong>and</strong> habitual<br />
disobedience is evidence <strong>of</strong> a heart still in fundamental<br />
rebellion; there is a judgement to come; <strong>God</strong> is our<br />
judge. This is what it is to live as moral beings.<br />
David Wells 10 <strong>and</strong> Dick Keyes ll make the point that we<br />
have lost public discourse in terms <strong>of</strong> morals <strong>and</strong> replaced<br />
it with discourse framed in psychological <strong>and</strong> emotional<br />
terms. ' ... the older quest for spiritual authenticity, for<br />
godliness, has <strong>of</strong>ten been replaced by newer quests for<br />
psychological wholeness' says Wells. This has permeated<br />
the church. Feeling good has become more important<br />
than meeting <strong>God</strong>. Creating a relaxed <strong>and</strong> amusing<br />
atmosphere is more important than the serious business<br />
<strong>of</strong> self-examination in the light <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>'s Word.<br />
<strong>The</strong> tragedy is, that without a moral discourse, we lose<br />
the context in which to find our humanity. As Wells<br />
points out, there are consequences:<br />
(a) character takes second place to personality. Words<br />
such as honour, reputation, morals, integrity, manly, good<br />
are (unless they're interpreted psychologically) replaced<br />
by words like stunning, creative, charisma, forceful,<br />
fascinating, magnetic, to describe desirable qualities.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are non-moral. So attention turns from being<br />
something in relation to timeless values or virtues to<br />
12<br />
Foundations
eing appealing to others. What we actually are is less<br />
important than our performance before a public that<br />
mostly (we hope) judges the exterior - or, at least, the<br />
image we project.<br />
(b) guilt is replaced, if at all, by something like shame,<br />
not an objective reality but a feeling, not a reflex <strong>of</strong> Out<br />
relationship with <strong>God</strong> but <strong>of</strong> our relationship with others<br />
- social, not moral.<br />
(c) virtues have been replaced by personal values which<br />
are little more than preferences.<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall picrure is <strong>of</strong> a society identifying itself by<br />
images because what we are seen to be by people is<br />
everything. Like Saul we fear the people, unlike David,<br />
we do not fear <strong>God</strong>.<br />
2. Consequences <strong>of</strong> the Fall<br />
Man is a ruined temple, broken down <strong>and</strong> decayed, but<br />
sufficient remains to hint at the splendour that once was.<br />
<strong>The</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> the Fall are that man now uses all his<br />
capacities (the broader image) in sinful <strong>and</strong> disobedient<br />
ways. All he has <strong>and</strong> does is against his Creator. What is<br />
the significance <strong>of</strong> the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> now<br />
(a) Idolatry. <strong>The</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> man, as Calvin describes it, is<br />
a veritable idol factory. Cut <strong>of</strong>f from <strong>God</strong> we desperately<br />
search for something else to worship. We cannot escape<br />
what we are, even in our sinful state; we are worshippers.<br />
But neither, Scripture would suggest, can we escape<br />
being in the image <strong>of</strong> our god. <strong>The</strong>ir idols are silver <strong>and</strong><br />
gold, the work <strong>of</strong> man's h<strong>and</strong>s .... Those who make them<br />
become like them; so do all who trust in them'. (Psalm<br />
115:4,8). What we worship, that will we come to<br />
resemble; the worshipper <strong>of</strong> money, success or power<br />
suffers a diminished humanity. We may add that what we<br />
worship we also represent to the world. We become the<br />
ambassadors <strong>of</strong> our gods. <strong>The</strong> great god is self as the hero<br />
<strong>of</strong> Camus' novel <strong>The</strong> Fall discovers: 'I am not hardhearted;<br />
far from it - full <strong>of</strong> pity on the contrary <strong>and</strong> with<br />
a ready tear to boot. Only, my emotional impulses always<br />
turn toward me, my feelings <strong>of</strong> pity concern me. It is not<br />
true after all, that I have never loved. I conceived at least<br />
one great love in my life, <strong>of</strong> which I was always the<br />
object'.12 What was meant to be the image has become<br />
god. And so we make god in our image <strong>and</strong> remake<br />
ourselves in the image <strong>of</strong> our god. Who can deliver us<br />
from this circle<br />
(b) Identity. 'Made in <strong>God</strong>'s image' is the Bible's answer<br />
to the question' Who am I' Having lost the image we<br />
have lost the knowledge <strong>of</strong> who we are. Is not this why<br />
'style' is so important We are radically lost, our true<br />
'substance' lost or obscured. David Wells writes: 'A<br />
century ago, the answer to the question, "Who are we"<br />
would have been one thing, but today it something<br />
entirely different. "I am my genes" some say, as they<br />
surrender themselves to biological fate. "I am my past", "I<br />
am my self-image", "I am my gender", I am what I have",<br />
" I am what I do", "I am whom I know", "I am my<br />
sexual orientation", say others who think that there are<br />
other kinds <strong>of</strong> fate or that identity is either something<br />
we do or something we can construct. And what we once<br />
would have said - " I am one who is made in the image<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>" - does not translate into the language <strong>of</strong><br />
modernity' .13<br />
People need to know who they are but without <strong>God</strong> there<br />
is no adequate sense <strong>of</strong> identity that can do justice to<br />
what they are. Identity is therefore located in something<br />
we have, wear or do; something we want to be seen to be;<br />
some projection - be it 'bad' or 'good' in conventional<br />
moral terms matters not provided it gives me an answer<br />
to the question 'who am P' Moreover it is important that<br />
other people see me in this way. I must project an image;<br />
what others think <strong>of</strong> me is all important. 'People' rather<br />
than <strong>God</strong> are the audience for my life's performance.<br />
Appearance - style - becomes everything - because<br />
after all, man looks on the outward appearance. So what<br />
if <strong>God</strong> looks on the heart He does not exist; even if<br />
he does, what has he got to do with me <strong>Image</strong> is<br />
everything. But that I am an image means nothing.<br />
What's more - don't you dare attack my sexual<br />
orientation, or my preferences, or my culture or what I do<br />
or the way I dress. Attack these <strong>and</strong> you attack what <strong>and</strong><br />
who I am. I can no longer be distinguished from my<br />
constituent parts, my components, my faculties, gifts,<br />
capacities <strong>and</strong> accoutrements. For, lacking as I do a real<br />
Spring 2006<br />
13
sense <strong>of</strong> identity apart from or deeper than these, these<br />
are me. Tolerance <strong>of</strong> me while criticising my behaviour,<br />
choices <strong>and</strong> morals is, to me, incomprehensible. I am<br />
those things. Reject my image <strong>and</strong> you reject me. I really<br />
am that frail. <strong>The</strong> outward appearance is who I am <strong>and</strong> if<br />
you cannot accept this, you do not accept me. But at the<br />
same time I long- <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> - to be accepted for what<br />
I am - warts <strong>and</strong> all.<br />
(c). Ignorance. We do not know ourselves. With<br />
apologies to John Calvin in the opening paragraph <strong>of</strong> his<br />
Institutes, 'Nearly all the folly we possess, that is to say,<br />
true <strong>and</strong> sound folly, consist <strong>of</strong> two parts: the ignorance <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>God</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds,<br />
which one precedes <strong>and</strong> brings forth the other is not easy<br />
to discern'. We are ignorant <strong>of</strong> ourselves; thinking we are<br />
wise, we become fools. We have exchanged the Truth for<br />
a lie (Psalm 106:20; Rom 1:25). True knowledge is part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the renewed image. But the knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> is also<br />
the way to the renewing <strong>of</strong> the image.<br />
(d) Implications in the New Testament. Explicit<br />
references to creation in the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> are not<br />
common in the New Testament but are significant.<br />
• James 3:9 - it is wrong to curse people who are made<br />
in <strong>God</strong>'s likeness [kath homoiousin theou} because ro bless<br />
<strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> curse what he has made is the height <strong>of</strong><br />
inconsistency because the crearure evidently bears some <strong>of</strong><br />
the glory <strong>of</strong> the Creator. <strong>The</strong> clear implication is that<br />
even fallen man bears something <strong>of</strong> the glory <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />
because he is in <strong>God</strong>'s image <strong>and</strong> is therefore to be treated<br />
with pr<strong>of</strong>ound respect. Listen again to Calvin:14 'We are<br />
not to consider what men merit <strong>of</strong> themselves but to look<br />
upon the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in all men, to which we owe all<br />
honour <strong>and</strong> love. <strong>The</strong>refore whatever man you meet who<br />
needs your aid, you have no reason to refuse to help<br />
him .... Say "he is contemptible <strong>and</strong> worthless" but the<br />
Lord shows him to be one to whom he has deigned to<br />
give the beauty <strong>of</strong> his image ... "'.<br />
• In his discussion <strong>of</strong> head-coverings in 1 Cor 11:7 Paul<br />
calls man the image [eikwn} <strong>and</strong> glory <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
woman the glory <strong>of</strong> man. <strong>The</strong> implication appears to be<br />
that man reflects <strong>God</strong> in his lordship <strong>and</strong> in this way is<br />
the 'glory' <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in a way that the woman is not. Both<br />
14<br />
are equally in <strong>God</strong>'s image but man is <strong>God</strong>'s glory in the<br />
sense that he reflects <strong>God</strong>'s dominion <strong>and</strong> authority in a<br />
way that the woman does not. She meanwhile is the glory<br />
<strong>of</strong> man (that is, reflecting him by her existence <strong>and</strong> role<br />
in creation). Again, the 'image' has implications for<br />
Christians in that it upholds the order <strong>of</strong> creation.<br />
• In Acts 17:28f the word 'image' is not used but the<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> affinity to <strong>God</strong> is clear; we are <strong>of</strong>fspring <strong>of</strong> the one<br />
<strong>God</strong>. <strong>The</strong> implication <strong>of</strong> verse 29 is that if we are <strong>God</strong>'s<br />
<strong>of</strong>fspring, we should not think that the <strong>God</strong> who<br />
'fathered' us can be represented by inanimate objects, 'an<br />
image formed [xaragmati} by the art <strong>and</strong> imagination <strong>of</strong><br />
man'. <strong>The</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> being <strong>God</strong>'s <strong>of</strong>fspring is used in an<br />
evangelistic context to remind people <strong>of</strong> their inherent<br />
relationship to <strong>God</strong> as creatures, <strong>and</strong> as a rebuke for<br />
worshipping idols. In context, its main purpose for Paul<br />
is as a rebuke. What we were (<strong>and</strong> are) st<strong>and</strong>s over us as a<br />
rebuke to what we have become: idolaters. We should be<br />
able to infer something about <strong>God</strong> from what we are, but<br />
instead we make images <strong>of</strong> him from metal <strong>and</strong> stone.<br />
Restoring the <strong>Image</strong><br />
Most important in the NT usage <strong>of</strong> 'image' is the theme<br />
<strong>of</strong> renewal <strong>of</strong> the image. <strong>The</strong> 'restoration hermeneutic'<br />
relies on the renewal <strong>of</strong> the image to infer the content <strong>and</strong><br />
meaning <strong>of</strong> the original image. This tacitly assumes that<br />
we can only see what humanity should be in Christ. <strong>The</strong><br />
image is renewed in Christ. He is the 'image [eikwn} <strong>of</strong><br />
the invisible <strong>God</strong>'(Col. 1: 15; also 2 Cor 4:4). According<br />
to Hebrews 11: 1-3 he is the 'radiance' <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>'s glory, the<br />
'express image' or 'exact representation' [xarakteerstamp,<br />
impress, as <strong>of</strong> coin or seal} <strong>of</strong> his nature, his very<br />
being [hupostasews}. <strong>The</strong> 'exact impress' is that which<br />
corresponds to the original so that thereby the person is<br />
known. 'As <strong>Image</strong>, Christ is the visible representation<br />
<strong>and</strong> manifestation <strong>of</strong> the invisible <strong>God</strong>, the objective<br />
expression <strong>of</strong> the divine nature, the face <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> turned as<br />
it were toward the world, the exact likeness <strong>of</strong> the Father<br />
in all things except being the Father. Thus we receive<br />
"the light <strong>of</strong> the knowledge <strong>of</strong> the glory <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in the<br />
face <strong>of</strong> Jesus Christ".' 15<br />
Foundations
'What <strong>God</strong> essentially is, Christ makes manifest'.16<br />
Christ is eternally the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>; he can never be not<br />
the image. He is the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in his pre-incarnate<br />
state (Heb 1: 3) also in the incarnation (ColI: 15; 2 Cor 4:4).<br />
He is the image inherently; we, derivatively. He is the<br />
<strong>Image</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>; we are created in that image. In the<br />
incarnation we see striking evidence <strong>of</strong> man being made<br />
in <strong>God</strong>'s image, for how could <strong>God</strong> have revealed himself<br />
fully in his Son if there were not correspondence between<br />
our nature <strong>and</strong> <strong>God</strong>'s He is the 'facsimile' <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
also the 'prototype' <strong>of</strong> humanity within the <strong>God</strong>head. 17<br />
In Christ being fully man <strong>and</strong> fully <strong>God</strong> we have the<br />
answer to Calvin's conundrum: does the knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>God</strong> or <strong>of</strong> ourselves come first In Christ we find both the<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourselves, true <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> true<br />
humanity.<br />
Christ was <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> fully obeyed <strong>God</strong>. <strong>The</strong>re was never<br />
any possibility <strong>of</strong> his sinning <strong>and</strong> no possibility therefore<br />
<strong>of</strong> there being any breach between the narrow <strong>and</strong> broad<br />
image. His work is called, in Romans 5:18, his 'one act <strong>of</strong><br />
righteousness' (henos dikaiwmatos). He maintained<br />
throughout his life bur especially <strong>and</strong> characteristically at<br />
the cross his love for <strong>and</strong> obedience to <strong>God</strong> <strong>and</strong> did so<br />
from the heart (John 4:34; 8:29; 17:4; Heb 10:7). Thus a<br />
perfect image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> was maintained <strong>and</strong> a perfect<br />
righteousness wrought to be 'reckoned' through faith to<br />
those who believe. <strong>The</strong> righteousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> as man, that<br />
is the righteousness <strong>of</strong> Christ, should perhaps be seen not<br />
as a substance or a faculty or even a quality but as an act,<br />
the act <strong>of</strong> obedience which Adam failed to <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>God</strong>, an<br />
act that was human bur <strong>of</strong> infinite value because also<br />
divine. It is perfect love which is not static but dynamic,<br />
active, the expression <strong>of</strong> authentic faith or trust. By that<br />
act all who believe are constituted righteous, by<br />
imputation, by federal relation to Christ - made what<br />
they are not by nature.<br />
In Christ's being the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> we see also the goal <strong>of</strong><br />
regeneration: to be conformed to his likeness (Rom 8:29)<br />
<strong>and</strong> to be like him - 'just as we have borne the image <strong>of</strong><br />
the man <strong>of</strong> dust, we shall also bear the image <strong>of</strong> the man<br />
<strong>of</strong> heaven' (1 Cor 15:49; cf 2 Cor. 3: 18; 1 John 3:2). In<br />
Spring 2006<br />
Christ we are renewed in righteousness, holiness <strong>and</strong><br />
knowledge. <strong>The</strong> image <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in this sense is dynamic<br />
not static. To 'image' <strong>God</strong> is to live a life <strong>of</strong> love,<br />
imitating <strong>God</strong>. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> redemption is to be like <strong>God</strong>.<br />
What then should the church do<br />
1. Remember that (a) some appearance/image is<br />
inevitable as the genuine expression <strong>of</strong> reality; not<br />
artificially projected but the outshining <strong>of</strong> our being <strong>and</strong><br />
behaviour. If I appear competent/wise/loving/generous it<br />
should be because I really am, not because I am 'putting<br />
it on', but (b) 'image' is wrong when created consciously<br />
to obscure reality or project an alternative or even<br />
contrary <strong>and</strong> therefore deceptive 'persona'. This is the<br />
essence <strong>of</strong> hypocrisy.<br />
2. <strong>Image</strong> <strong>and</strong> reality will never wholly coincide in this<br />
life; perfect integrity is possible only in heaven.<br />
3. Christians should be able to 'dare to be sinners' with<br />
each other, acknowledging what we are though not<br />
glorying in it, <strong>and</strong> not feeling the need to project<br />
perfectionist images. We fear <strong>God</strong> not man. Our attitude<br />
should be 'I do not fear your condemnation because<br />
although I am not perfect I am right with <strong>God</strong>.' We do<br />
not glory in our sins but we know that what counts is<br />
that the blood <strong>of</strong> Jesus has cleansed us from them all.<br />
4. Be careful to try not to project or impose any images<br />
in preaching <strong>and</strong> church life. Looking at your life or<br />
church, <strong>and</strong> listening to your sermons, what would people<br />
think 'justifies' Even if we preach the gospel <strong>of</strong><br />
justification through faith by grace alone, what are people<br />
hearing <strong>and</strong> seeing Are we pressurising people to<br />
conform on inessentials Dr. Lloyd-Jones tells a story <strong>of</strong> a<br />
man who was converted. He had a big 'h<strong>and</strong>lebar'<br />
moustache. One day the Doctor was indignant to see that<br />
this man's moustache had gone. He thought some<br />
busy-body Christian had been telling him that 'Christians<br />
do not have moustaches like that'. That was not the way<br />
<strong>of</strong> sanctification. Francis Schaeffer used to say, 'You<br />
cannot be the Holy Spirit for someone else'. What<br />
untealistic images do we project <strong>and</strong> what unbiblical<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ards do we impose Preachers in particular may do<br />
so unwittingly - by their style more than by their 'substance'.<br />
15
5. Preach <strong>God</strong>. <strong>The</strong> only way for the image to be restored<br />
is by the knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in Christ.<br />
(a) Be convinced <strong>and</strong> convince the people <strong>of</strong> the<br />
seriousness <strong>of</strong> preaching <strong>and</strong> listening.<br />
(b) Present <strong>God</strong> as the 'audience' for our lives. Inculcate a<br />
true fear <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>, a reverent awe <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> as the one who<br />
knows all, sees all <strong>and</strong> will judge all; the one who sees the<br />
heart. 'Pear him, ye saints, <strong>and</strong> you will then / Have<br />
nothing else to fear'. Integrity begins with finding our<br />
identity before <strong>God</strong>.<br />
(c) Preach the love <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>. A <strong>God</strong> to whom people are<br />
attracted. Love is the perfect expression <strong>of</strong> the image <strong>and</strong><br />
it is <strong>God</strong>'s love that calls it forth.<br />
(d) Preach the moral <strong>God</strong>, the <strong>God</strong> <strong>of</strong> absolute st<strong>and</strong>ards,<br />
<strong>of</strong> holiness, law <strong>and</strong> justice. <strong>The</strong> gospel can only be<br />
understood in the moral context <strong>of</strong> human existence.<br />
Remember Paul in Athens - Acts 17:30,31 - preaching<br />
to pagans, he concludes with a call to repentance based on<br />
the coming judgement.<br />
(e) Preach Christ <strong>and</strong> not yourselves, 2 Cor. 4:4,5.<br />
(f) Remember that in all preaching <strong>and</strong> leading <strong>of</strong><br />
worship, style as well as substance is important. We need<br />
what someone called both a 'divine reverence' <strong>and</strong> a<br />
'human freshness'. We do not encourage reverence by<br />
being inhumanly sombre; nor a godly joy by being<br />
jocular <strong>and</strong> light-hearted.<br />
6. In sharing <strong>God</strong>'s image with all humanity we have the<br />
best possible 'point <strong>of</strong> contact' with unbelievers. In Acts<br />
17:22-3,27-9 Paul makes use <strong>of</strong> 'points <strong>of</strong> contact' in<br />
creation <strong>and</strong> Pall (man's religious nature, practices <strong>and</strong><br />
ignorance <strong>and</strong> our being made in <strong>God</strong>'s image) as he<br />
confronts the Athenians with the (redemptive) truth <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>God</strong>. Surely no cultural differences can be as great as the<br />
similarities between human beings who share all that is<br />
contained in the divine image <strong>and</strong> the plight we share as<br />
sinners ignorant <strong>of</strong> the living <strong>God</strong><br />
Some questions for discussion.<br />
1. In what ways is 'projecting an image' inevitable<br />
Would you draw any distinctions between style,<br />
appearance <strong>and</strong> image<br />
2. What are some <strong>of</strong> the consequences <strong>of</strong> the prevalence<br />
<strong>of</strong> images over reality in our relationships with other<br />
people<br />
3. Do Christians project images <strong>of</strong> the Christian life<br />
which are not realistic How In what ways may these be<br />
damaging<br />
4. How does 'the fear <strong>of</strong> the Lord' in everyday life<br />
eliminate hypocrisy <strong>and</strong> bring about integrity<br />
5. How may we promote the recovery <strong>of</strong> a moral<br />
framework for thought <strong>and</strong> life<br />
References<br />
1. Bible quotations are from the English St<strong>and</strong>ard Version unless<br />
otherwise indicated.<br />
2. A.A.Hoekema, Created in <strong>God</strong>'s <strong>Image</strong>, (Eerdmans 1986) P 66.<br />
3. Robert Reymond in A New Systematic <strong>The</strong>ology <strong>of</strong> the Christian Faith<br />
(Nelson, 1998), P 428.<br />
4. J.H.Thornwell, Collected Writings, (Banner <strong>of</strong> Truth 1974) Vol I, p236.<br />
5. Jonathan Edwards, On the Freedom <strong>of</strong> the Will, Pt I, Secv'<br />
6. Hoekema, P 70-71.<br />
7. Edwards, Part. I, Sect IV,V.<br />
8. Thornwell, P 237-38.<br />
9. Instirutes I.xiv.3. (Ford Lewis Battles translation).<br />
10. Losing our Virtue, (IVP, Leicester 1998) P 16.<br />
11. Two essays on '<strong>Image</strong> <strong>and</strong> Reality in Society' in What in the World<br />
is Real (Communication Institute, 1982).<br />
12. Quoted from Worship by the Book ed. D.A.Carson, (Zondervan,<br />
2002), P 240.<br />
13. Wells, P 13.<br />
14. Insts. III.vii.6.<br />
15. International St<strong>and</strong>ard Bible Encyclopaedia on <strong>Image</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong>.<br />
16. EEBruce, cited in the ISBE.<br />
17. But to say with Barth that humanity finds its original nature only<br />
in Christ <strong>and</strong> not in Adam is to go too far because Adam is called the<br />
first man, Christ the Second man; Christ takes on human nature in the<br />
incarnation (Phi! 2:7; Heb 2:14,17).<br />
16<br />
Foundations